I haven't seen the Life of Pi, it turned me right off just at the trailer for it. I'm so cold toward it that I'll probably never watch that film. Funny how things can turn you like that.

The trailer made me want to watch it, but after going there both me and my friend came out of the cinema and looked at each other, asking "WTF did we just watch?"...

I went and checked the message boards in IMDB after watching it. The people there are quite divided. But it's funny, how the people defending the movie make up all kinds of excuses how the rest just "don't get the meaning", blah blah blah. It's almost like reading some fanboys in the forum!!!

The movie was a nice show of CGI (too much for my taste) with a nice allegorical story that is supposed to make you think for yourself and god and the rest, with a twist at the end. I guess you have to read the book to see what the author wants to say if you don't want to watch it mac

I haven't seen the Life of Pi, it turned me right off just at the trailer for it. I'm so cold toward it that I'll probably never watch that film. Funny how things can turn you like that.

Not seen it myself but in my experience trailers just can't be trusted any more. They very rarely reflect the quality or even the basic premise of the film they're representing, especially as they're all pretty much exactly the same these days. Fade in, fade out, loud noise, running away from explosion... etc etc. Doesn't just affect the action film genre either.

As an example, after watching Moon I was very much looking forward to Duncan Jones' next film. Upon seeing the trailer for Source Code I was extremely disappointed as it looked as it had taken just one film for what seemed like a very promising director to turn to run of the mill action schlep. It took me ages to get over it and bring myself to watch the film and I was extremely surprised when it turned out to be a fantastic, emotive, thoughtful affair with a very intriguing concept and a fantastic ending (can't recommend it enough by the way).

Having said that, films like Transformers, Battleship et cetera suit their trailers well. I sometimes think they make these films by coming up with a trailer and building a film around it...

I haven't seen the Life of Pi, it turned me right off just at the trailer for it. I'm so cold toward it that I'll probably never watch that film. Funny how things can turn you like that.

Not seen it myself but in my experience trailers just can't be trusted any more. They very rarely reflect the quality or even the basic premise of the film they're representing, especially as they're all pretty much exactly the same these days. Fade in, fade out, loud noise, running away from explosion... etc etc. Doesn't just affect the action film genre either.

As an example, after watching Moon I was very much looking forward to Duncan Jones' next film. Upon seeing the trailer for Source Code I was extremely disappointed as it looked as it had taken just one film for what seemed like a very promising director to turn to run of the mill action schlep. It took me ages to get over it and bring myself to watch the film and I was extremely surprised when it turned out to be a fantastic, emotive, thoughtful affair with a very intriguing concept and a fantastic ending (can't recommend it enough by the way).

Having said that, films like Transformers, Battleship et cetera suit their trailers well. I sometimes think they make these films by coming up with a trailer and building a film around it...

Agreed. I also hate it when the trailers contain the best scenes/jokes of the movie...

Well, this film is pretty balls. The first hour is half attempting to be serious, half attempting to be a goofy comedy (I think). The last half hour or so when it gets to the action is pretty good though. But this isn't Terminator 2. It also isn't True Lies. It's just no where near as good. Forrest Whitaker running was quite funny in itself though. When it comes down to it, I think this was just a flawed as a gherkin script rather than no budget/bad acting or anything else. I don't think I'd recommend this to be honest. I wouldn't say it was worth the £5.40 I paid for my ticket. Maybe watch it on Tv in a few years or a £3 DVD from Tesco...

Going to see Bullet in the Head next week hopefully. Sly Stallone's comeback to solo-films (oh wait, guess not really given Rambo and Rocky Balboa). I expect this to be a giant cliche from start to finish, but I also to expect it to be a good action movie. Most of Stallone's films are not gonna be Oscar winners, but they are good fun films when you just want to see a guy punch another guy, shoot another guy etc. But he does have an Academy Award, and his comeback films have been great. Rocky Balboa, Rambo and the Expendables were great. Expendables 2 was a little too cheesey but still a good fun film. Plus, JCVD was in it, and he's a top lad.

Well, this film is pretty balls. The first hour is half attempting to be serious, half attempting to be a goofy comedy (I think). The last half hour or so when it gets to the action is pretty good though. But this isn't Terminator 2. It also isn't True Lies. It's just no where near as good. Forrest Whitaker running was quite funny in itself though. When it comes down to it, I think this was just a flawed as a gherkin script rather than no budget/bad acting or anything else. I don't think I'd recommend this to be honest. I wouldn't say it was worth the £5.40 I paid for my ticket. Maybe watch it on Tv in a few years or a £3 DVD from Tesco...

Going to see Bullet in the Head next week hopefully. Sly Stallone's comeback to solo-films (oh wait, guess not really given Rambo and Rocky Balboa). I expect this to be a giant cliche from start to finish, but I also to expect it to be a good action movie. Most of Stallone's films are not gonna be Oscar winners, but they are good fun films when you just want to see a guy punch another guy, shoot another guy etc. But he does have an Academy Award, and his comeback films have been great. Rocky Balboa, Rambo and the Expendables were great. Expendables 2 was a little too cheesey but still a good fun film. Plus, JCVD was in it, and he's a top lad.

I want to watch both of them. The trailers looked terrific, I have high hopes for them (all things considered).

There's also the new Jason Statham film, doing whatever he does best. Looks like some good action there

I want to watch both of them. The trailers looked terrific, I have high hopes for them (all things considered).

There's also the new Jason Statham film, doing whatever he does best. Looks like some good action there

I'm really excited for Bullet to the Head. I am a big fan of action films, I'll happily sit and watch a Van Damme or Seagal (pre-2007) film. I don't always want to have to think, or focus on the plot, or be interested in characters. Sometimes, all you need is a guy getting kicked in the cock while being shot. I think it will be better than Last Stand. Partly because I think Arnie needs some time to warm up again properly, and secondly because I just think Last stand was poorly written nonsense for the most part. Bullet to the Head will be okay writing, but Stallone brings budget and he himself is still an absolute tank of a man. In the trailer he has his shirt off, and it is shameful that a man in his 60s is in better shape than I have ever been in.

Statham is usually very good, and was hilarious in the Expendables (amongst others).

I want to watch both of them. The trailers looked terrific, I have high hopes for them (all things considered).

There's also the new Jason Statham film, doing whatever he does best. Looks like some good action there

I'm really excited for Bullet to the Head. I am a big fan of action films, I'll happily sit and watch a Van Damme or Seagal (pre-2007) film. I don't always want to have to think, or focus on the plot, or be interested in characters. Sometimes, all you need is a guy . I think it will be better than Last Stand. Partly because I think Arnie needs some time to warm up again properly, and secondly because I just think Last stand was poorly written nonsense for the most part. Bullet to the Head will be okay writing, but Stallone brings budget and he himself is still an absolute tank of a man. In the trailer he has his shirt off, and it is shameful that a man in his 60s is in better shape than I have ever been in.

Statham is usually very good, and was hilarious in the Expendables (amongst others).

That's the thing I've noticed lately; I'm an engineer and I spend all day trying to figure out stuff, so when I watch a movie at the end of a day I just want to see the same things as you.

Not the Life of Pi sh*t, existence and god and rediscovering yourself and thinking about your life... Nope, just comedies or someone "getting kicked in the cock while being shot" as you put it! No-brainers. Relaxing stuff.

Seagal was ok up until "Under Siege"! The rest of them (especially his last 20 or so movies) are unbearable crap.

I watched a Van Damme one recently that was ok-ish, the "6 bullets" one. Not bad for JCVD, not bad.

Well, this film is pretty balls. The first hour is half attempting to be serious, half attempting to be a goofy comedy (I think). The last half hour or so when it gets to the action is pretty good though. But this isn't Terminator 2. It also isn't True Lies. It's just no where near as good. Forrest Whitaker running was quite funny in itself though. When it comes down to it, I think this was just a flawed as a gherkin script rather than no budget/bad acting or anything else. I don't think I'd recommend this to be honest. I wouldn't say it was worth the £5.40 I paid for my ticket. Maybe watch it on Tv in a few years or a £3 DVD from Tesco.....

Saw this the other day when I didn't make it in time for Django... Far from the worst film I've seen but far from the best, it felt a bit short and rushed. The highlights for me were Johnny Knoxville's comedy cameo and some of Arnies one liners.

I recently flew from Australia to Bangkok on my way to Phuket on holidays, which is 9 hours, & Thai Airways had a huge selection of movies & TV shows to watch. So on the way over I watched Taken 2, Pitch Perfect, Hope Springs & Ted.

Taken 2 was not up to the standard of Taken, which I did enjoy, but then again, I could watch nearly any movie with Liam Neeson in it & enjoy it, if you get what I mean. Most of the other movies were ok but nothing to write home about although I must admit that Ted made me laugh out loud at times, which I normally try not to do when I am on a flight, especially if it’s quiet & other passengers are trying to sleep.

I saved some movies that I wanted to watch for the flight back, such as Perks Of Being a Wallflower & Lawless, but we left Bangkok at midnight & I slept most of the way home so am a bit disappointed that I didn’t get to watch them.

I think whether you really enjoy a movie or not is very subjective. A lot of people here are praising Inglorious Bastards which, apart from the café scene, I found very disappointing &, movies I have liked, others have found disappointing. That’s the way things go

I watched Perks of Being a Wallflower the other day and thought it was quite sweet. It wasn't really taxing or something that I'd make people watch (unless they were an Emma Watson fan) but if it was on that I'd say passes time really well. In a way it's a really feel good film and I'd definitely watch it again if it was on tv or something.

I watched Perks of Being a Wallflower the other day and thought it was quite sweet. It wasn't really taxing or something that I'd make people watch (unless they were an Emma Watson fan) but if it was on that I'd say passes time really well. In a way it's a really feel good film and I'd definitely watch it again if it was on tv or something.

Thanks for that. I do like a movie, every now & then, that could be described as "quite sweet". I think that sometimes you just need to watch a movie that you enjoy without having to think too hard about. I find the same thing with books. I am an avid reader &, just ocassionally, I find that I need to read a book that would be described in the same way that just refreshes my mind.

I've watched the theatre version in London and it was brilliant, I wouldn't want to spoil it somehow... The theatre show was absolutely fantastic, the set was amazing and I never thought I would would have liked a musical so much. So I will avoid this for now, maybe in the future

I have a a question considering movies out of curiosity.Are there movies who were hyped by adds, family, friends that you had to go see it in theatre, DVD or TV but ended up really disappointed?For me it would be Avatar: my niece said oh there is lovely elves in it, I found myself quickly bored by lack of good story or interesting characters, movie dragged on for too longn I found it a bad copy of Dances with WolvesAmerican Beauty: my sister said it's good, watched it on TV, I was like wth are there peopel loving such a disturbing depressing story?Big Fish: I like fantasy , fairy tales and I like Tim Burton's work, a friend recommended it to me, all I got was an incoherent story about a father telling stories about himselmf as a big hero which made no sense at all and led to nowhereThe Matrix: no fan of action movie but it is considered a classic, however most of time I did not have a clue what it was aboutHarry Potter: you could not see past the success of its books even though I didn't read a single one of them, my niece and nephew forced me to watch 2 of those movies, although the concept of a wizard school is cool to me, its characters were so freakingly lame and stupid IMO, the storyline was also nothing to write home about for me and Harry is in my opinion the most annoying hero I can imagine, maybe the series was better with a cool wizard girl as protagonistTwilight: recommended by a friend who likes vampires, even though I am yet to find a good movie about vampires, gave it a shot, found myself very bored halfway, lack of good story or interesting characters, seems to be very loved by teenage girls, I also heard it created some kind of feud between Twilight and Harry Potter fans, thank God I like neitherGhostbusters: no one recommended it but I was too young to watch when those came out, I only remember the cartoons which were not great but pretty cool, few years ago I saw the 2 movies were on DVD and thought ok let's give it a shot, my feeling after watching them was ok I guess when it came out it must have been spectacular and funny but to be honest I didn't find it funny nor entertaining, very boring. I guess I saw these way too lateMulholland Drive: perfect example of why movies told in a non-chronological way are often a miss for me, recommend by a friend who said it was a movie with an interesting lesbian theme, it all started out interesting even though scenes that didn't make sense were thrown in, when I realized that the movie's premise on the box was totally misleading and the storyline so basic that I was like ok why the hell did they make such a long movie about it. It really got me avoiding movies that want to sound intelligent by showing scenes in a non-chronological order, throw in scenes that add more art or violence or boring dialogue than content (reason I have never cared to watch Pulp Fiction). 11:14 being a big exception.Titanic (1997): I saw it in theatre as teenager as my mum didn't want to go alone, I have nothing against a love story but this one dragged on and on, the actual sinking scene wasn't good either, they just kept on focusing on the love birds most of time, I have never been able to rewatch this oneUnderworld: a war between werewolves and vampires with a Romeo and Julia love theme, it sounded cliché to me but hey I love fantasy and mythical creatues, man was I disappointed to find out that it all took place in modern settings, fighting with guns, I found it all stupid as hell, same can be said of the Blade movies

Avatar: More like Pocahontas! But yeah, Dances with the Wolves sounds pretty similar. The story was always secondary, the thing that was amazing was the CGIAmerican Beauty: Ok movie, nothing spectacular, although it does make you feel sorry for the guy at the endBig Fish: I feel the sameThe Matrix: Matrix was cool, maybe you didn't get the idea (no disrespect intended here, it took me a while to get it too as I watched it in another language!)Harry Potter: It is written for kids, so the characters that you thought were lame were actually pretty cool to the younger audiences. I would prefer them having machine guns and killing people while riding flying dragons, but this is for kids! I think Rowlings started writting it as bed-time stories for her kids or somethingTwilight: Chick flick. But for the young teenager chicks. Nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that I have met a bagel recently that had more acting talent than Kristen Steward. F*ck, Kimi has more facial expressions than herGhostbusters: Way cool at their time. Right amount of comedy, action, cool graphicsMulholland Drive: Apart from the girls kissing, probably one of my least favorite moviesTitanic (1997): Titanic was supposed to be the backstory if I remember correctly, it was the love story with the tragedy as a background. The graphics again, were very good for 1997Underworld: Only watched the first one and I honestly can't remember what was happening. Didn't connect with it at all

Avatar: my niece said oh there is lovely elves in it, I found myself quickly bored by lack of good story or interesting characters, movie dragged on for too longn I found it a bad copy of Dances with Wolves

What's the age old saying about there being only five different stories? Or whatever the number is, or only one if you believe the latest Spider-Man film.As for being a similar story to Dances With Wolves, I never understand why that is so often given as a criticism, Dances is a good film, and is over an hour longer.

Amon wrote:

American Beauty: my sister said it's good, watched it on TV, I was like wth are there peopel loving such a disturbing depressing story?

I thought that it was an uplifting movie. A man starts as sad and depressed, and quickly ends up happy via some amusing situations.

Amon wrote:

Big Fish: I like fantasy , fairy tales and I like Tim Burton's work, a friend recommended it to me, all I got was an incoherent story about a father telling stories about himselmf as a big hero which made no sense at all and led to nowhere

It's one of Burton's worst. And not helped by the fact that Mcgregor can't carry a film. He lacks the charisma. He's a decent supporting actor who happens to be good looking enough to get offered leading roles.

Amon wrote:

The Matrix: no fan of action movie but it is considered a classic, however most of time I did not have a clue what it was about

It's a Japanese anime. Made into an american live action film. With some Hong Kong martial arts films copied (sub-standard) into the mix. Some of the elements are ripped directly from other films.

Amon wrote:

Harry Potter: you could not see past the success of its books even though I didn't read a single one of them, my niece and nephew forced me to watch 2 of those movies, although the concept of a wizard school is cool to me, its characters were so freakingly lame and stupid IMO, the storyline was also nothing to write home about for me and Harry is in my opinion the most annoying hero I can imagine, maybe the series was better with a cool wizard girl as protagonist

I didn't watch them all, but I can give a synopsis of the ones I did:Potter: <Whine> There's a bad guy out there.Everyone else: No there isn't.<Generic action scene>End film.

Amon wrote:

Twilight: recommended by a friend who likes vampires, even though I am yet to find a good movie about vampires, gave it a shot, found myself very bored halfway, lack of good story or interesting characters, seems to be very loved by teenage girls, I also heard it created some kind of feud between Twilight and Harry Potter fans, thank God I like neither

I have no time for Christian allegories of any kind. But it's shorter than the bible, so that's good...?

Amon wrote:

Ghostbusters: no one recommended it but I was too young to watch when those came out, I only remember the cartoons which were not great but pretty cool, few years ago I saw the 2 movies were on DVD and thought ok let's give it a shot, my feeling after watching them was ok I guess when it came out it must have been spectacular and funny but to be honest I didn't find it funny nor entertaining, very boring. I guess I saw these way too late

If you don't find Bill Murray amusing then you're dead inside

Amon wrote:

Mulholland Drive: perfect example of why movies told in a non-chronological way are often a miss for me, recommend by a friend who said it was a movie with an interesting lesbian theme, it all started out interesting even though scenes that didn't make sense were thrown in, when I realized that the movie's premise on the box was totally misleading and the storyline so basic that I was like ok why the hell did they make such a long movie about it. It really got me avoiding movies that want to sound intelligent by showing scenes in a non-chronological order, throw in scenes that add more art or violence or boring dialogue than content (reason I have never cared to watch Pulp Fiction). 11:14 being a big exception.

I still can't figure out what it's about, and neither can anyone else according to Wikipedia, the director hasn't explained anything either. But I think that it's a good example of a film that doesn't make much sense but is nonetheless well made, vs a bad film because it's been made badly or because the script is bad.As for Pulp Fiction, I don't remember that the chronology switches back and forth too much, more that you switch back and forth between connected characters at the same time in the film, and their plots are set during slightly different times. So don't let that put you off. However, I don't think it's Tarantino's best film, and he's become even more self indulgent ever since.As for films wanting to sound intelligent by mixing the chronology, how does that work? I think you read too much into the intent other than to entertain you and maybe make you think a bit.If you know in advance that it's mixed up, then that's going to change the understanding of the film and wouldn't be how it was intended to be viewed. Knowing the final act reveal of a film (Fight Club, Sixth Sense, The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight Rises...) beforehand completely changes the meaning of the film. Though some are interesting to re-watch when knowing the reveal and seeing how the emphasis and meaning is different and how it can be ambiguous.

Amon wrote:

Titanic (1997): I saw it in theatre as teenager as my mum didn't want to go alone, I have nothing against a love story but this one dragged on and on, the actual sinking scene wasn't good either, they just kept on focusing on the love birds most of time, I have never been able to rewatch this one

As with American Beauty, have you ever heard of the saying of 'getting out of a film what you take into it'? I think you expect a different film than the one it is. Imagine complaining that the romantic element of Transformers wasn't developed enough...

Amon wrote:

Underworld: a war between werewolves and vampires with a Romeo and Julia love theme, it sounded cliché to me but hey I love fantasy and mythical creatues, man was I disappointed to find out that it all took place in modern settings, fighting with guns, I found it all stupid as hell, same can be said of the Blade movies

There's nothing to review here. It's just bad. And only exists as an excuse to have a 'hot woman' in skin tight clothing run around. The fact that it's had two/three successful sequels says more about the general public than the film makers I think.

You can generally tell from the poster who the film is marketed at, (and look at the ones you've listed, Titanic isn't and action film poster, it's a romance set against a horrible event. Just like Dr Zhivago isn't a war film etc) and thus if a film will be bad or good. If someone told me to watch Underworld I would disregard everything they ever said about film or television for eternity!

Avatar: More like Pocahontas! But yeah, Dances with the Wolves sounds pretty similar. The story was always secondary, the thing that was amazing was the CGIAmerican Beauty: Ok movie, nothing spectacular, although it does make you feel sorry for the guy at the endBig Fish: I feel the sameThe Matrix: Matrix was cool, maybe you didn't get the idea (no disrespect intended here, it took me a while to get it too as I watched it in another language!)Harry Potter: It is written for kids, so the characters that you thought were lame were actually pretty cool to the younger audiences. I would prefer them having machine guns and killing people while riding flying dragons, but this is for kids! I think Rowlings started writting it as bed-time stories for her kids or somethingTwilight: Chick flick. But for the young teenager chicks. Nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that I have met a bagel recently that had more acting talent than Kristen Steward. F*ck, Kimi has more facial expressions than herGhostbusters: Way cool at their time. Right amount of comedy, action, cool graphicsMulholland Drive: Apart from the girls kissing, probably one of my least favorite moviesTitanic (1997): Titanic was supposed to be the backstory if I remember correctly, it was the love story with the tragedy as a background. The graphics again, were very good for 1997Underworld: Only watched the first one and I honestly can't remember what was happening. Didn't connect with it at all

Ty for your reaction. Just want to say that the main reason into the Matrix is that its theme nor the fact its an action movie interested me in the first place. A friend of mine loves those kind of movies but I kinda outgrew them.As for harry Potter, as the kids grow older, the series becomes darker and are defintely not aimed at young children any more.

bbobeckyj wrote:

Amon wrote:Avatar: my niece said oh there is lovely elves in it, I found myself quickly bored by lack of good story or interesting characters, movie dragged on for too longn I found it a bad copy of Dances with Wolves

What's the age old saying about there being only five different stories? Or whatever the number is, or only one if you believe the latest Spider-Man film.As for being a similar story to Dances With Wolves, I never understand why that is so often given as a criticism, Dances is a good film, and is over an hour longer.

Amon wrote:American Beauty: my sister said it's good, watched it on TV, I was like wth are there peopel loving such a disturbing depressing story?

I thought that it was an uplifting movie. A man starts as sad and depressed, and quickly ends up happy via some amusing situations.

Amon wrote:Big Fish: I like fantasy , fairy tales and I like Tim Burton's work, a friend recommended it to me, all I got was an incoherent story about a father telling stories about himselmf as a big hero which made no sense at all and led to nowhere

It's one of Burton's worst. And not helped by the fact that Mcgregor can't carry a film. He lacks the charisma. He's a decent supporting actor who happens to be good looking enough to get offered leading roles.

Amon wrote:The Matrix: no fan of action movie but it is considered a classic, however most of time I did not have a clue what it was about

It's a Japanese anime. Made into an american live action film. With some Hong Kong martial arts films copied (sub-standard) into the mix. Some of the elements are ripped directly from other films.

Amon wrote:Harry Potter: you could not see past the success of its books even though I didn't read a single one of them, my niece and nephew forced me to watch 2 of those movies, although the concept of a wizard school is cool to me, its characters were so freakingly lame and stupid IMO, the storyline was also nothing to write home about for me and Harry is in my opinion the most annoying hero I can imagine, maybe the series was better with a cool wizard girl as protagonist

I didn't watch them all, but I can give a synopsis of the ones I did:Potter: <Whine> There's a bad guy out there.Everyone else: No there isn't.<Generic action scene>End film.

Amon wrote:Twilight: recommended by a friend who likes vampires, even though I am yet to find a good movie about vampires, gave it a shot, found myself very bored halfway, lack of good story or interesting characters, seems to be very loved by teenage girls, I also heard it created some kind of feud between Twilight and Harry Potter fans, thank God I like neither

I have no time for Christian allegories of any kind. But it's shorter than the bible, so that's good...?

Amon wrote:Ghostbusters: no one recommended it but I was too young to watch when those came out, I only remember the cartoons which were not great but pretty cool, few years ago I saw the 2 movies were on DVD and thought ok let's give it a shot, my feeling after watching them was ok I guess when it came out it must have been spectacular and funny but to be honest I didn't find it funny nor entertaining, very boring. I guess I saw these way too lateIf you don't find Bill Murray amusing then you're dead inside

Amon wrote:Mulholland Drive: perfect example of why movies told in a non-chronological way are often a miss for me, recommend by a friend who said it was a movie with an interesting lesbian theme, it all started out interesting even though scenes that didn't make sense were thrown in, when I realized that the movie's premise on the box was totally misleading and the storyline so basic that I was like ok why the hell did they make such a long movie about it. It really got me avoiding movies that want to sound intelligent by showing scenes in a non-chronological order, throw in scenes that add more art or violence or boring dialogue than content (reason I have never cared to watch Pulp Fiction). 11:14 being a big exception.

I still can't figure out what it's about, and neither can anyone else according to Wikipedia, the director hasn't explained anything either. But I think that it's a good example of a film that doesn't make much sense but is nonetheless well made, vs a bad film because it's been made badly or because the script is bad.As for Pulp Fiction, I don't remember that the chronology switches back and forth too much, more that you switch back and forth between connected characters at the same time in the film, and their plots are set during slightly different times. So don't let that put you off. However, I don't think it's Tarantino's best film, and he's become even more self indulgent ever since.As for films wanting to sound intelligent by mixing the chronology, how does that work? I think you read too much into the intent other than to entertain you and maybe make you think a bit.If you know in advance that it's mixed up, then that's going to change the understanding of the film and wouldn't be how it was intended to be viewed. Knowing the final act reveal of a film (Fight Club, Sixth Sense, The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight Rises...) beforehand completely changes the meaning of the film. Though some are interesting to re-watch when knowing the reveal and seeing how the emphasis and meaning is different and how it can be ambiguous.

Amon wrote:Titanic (1997): I saw it in theatre as teenager as my mum didn't want to go alone, I have nothing against a love story but this one dragged on and on, the actual sinking scene wasn't good either, they just kept on focusing on the love birds most of time, I have never been able to rewatch this oneAs with American Beauty, have you ever heard of the saying of 'getting out of a film what you take into it'? I think you expect a different film than the one it is. Imagine complaining that the romantic element of Transformers wasn't developed enough...

Amon wrote:Underworld: a war between werewolves and vampires with a Romeo and Julia love theme, it sounded cliché to me but hey I love fantasy and mythical creatues, man was I disappointed to find out that it all took place in modern settings, fighting with guns, I found it all stupid as hell, same can be said of the Blade movies

There's nothing to review here. It's just bad. And only exists as an excuse to have a 'hot woman' in skin tight clothing run around. The fact that it's had two/three successful sequels says more about the general public than the film makers I think.

You can generally tell from the poster who the film is marketed at, (and look at the ones you've listed, Titanic isn't and action film poster, it's a romance set against a horrible event. Just like Dr Zhivago isn't a war film etc) and thus if a film will be bad or good. If someone told me to watch Underworld I would disregard everything they ever said about film or television for eternity!

Thx for your reaction too. I want to say that Dances with wolves is a movie I do love. It's one of the few "westerns" I actually like. Even though I see it more as Indian (as in native American) movie.About Transformers well,as a kid I thought the cartoons were fun even though I have not seen that many episodes. The movie just had too many humans to consider it as good. But again I'm no action movie lover. My list of movies would be endlessly long if I had to list all of those.Pulp Fiction I avoided not so much for the non-chronological order but I heard about the extreme violence in there too. Not my cup of tea. Plus a lot of dialoge doesn't sound very appealing to me either. Now that you mention Empire strikes back I forgot to include the Star Wars moviesI saw every Star Wars movie except episode III, first one I saw was empire, than return of the Jedi, than New Hope, than I saw the first and second of the prequelsI remember a cousin of mine introduced me to it, as a kid I thought they were interesting but apart from princess Leia in that sexy outfit in return of Jedi there is really nothing that made me want to become a Star Wars fan, collect any of the toys or rewatch the movies. My main complaint is it's too much special effects too little story, bad dialogue. It's a shame since auniverse with diverse creatures seems like a good base to start with. Sci-fi, movies in space are often not really winners for me. I did enjoy Star Trek to an extent though.

Thx for your reaction too. I want to say that Dances with wolves is a movie I do love. It's one of the few "westerns" I actually like. Even though I see it more as Indian (as in native American) movie.About Transformers well,as a kid I thought the cartoons were fun even though I have not seen that many episodes. The movie just had too many humans to consider it as good. But again I'm no action movie lover. My list of movies would be endlessly long if I had to list all of those.Pulp Fiction I avoided not so much for the non-chronological order but I heard about the extreme violence in there too. Not my cup of tea. Plus a lot of dialoge doesn't sound very appealing to me either. Now that you mention Empire strikes back I forgot to include the Star Wars moviesI saw every Star Wars movie except episode III, first one I saw was empire, than return of the Jedi, than New Hope, than I saw the first and second of the prequelsI remember a cousin of mine introduced me to it, as a kid I thought they were interesting but apart from princess Leia in that sexy outfit in return of Jedi there is really nothing that made me want to become a Star Wars fan, collect any of the toys or rewatch the movies. My main complaint is it's too much special effects too little story, bad dialogue. It's a shame since auniverse with diverse creatures seems like a good base to start with. Sci-fi, movies in space are often not really winners for me. I did enjoy Star Trek to an extent though.

In Pulp Fiction (from memory) all of the violence is off screen except for a few gun shots, which are common in most action films.I agree about Star Wars, broadly speaking. The characters are fun and charismatic, and the plot synopsis/summary is good, but the full plot, action, and dialogue, veers from embarrassing to simply bad.

Mulholland Drive: perfect example of why movies told in a non-chronological way are often a miss for me, recommend by a friend who said it was a movie with an interesting lesbian theme, it all started out interesting even though scenes that didn't make sense were thrown in, when I realized that the movie's premise on the box was totally misleading and the storyline so basic that I was like ok why the hell did they make such a long movie about it. It really got me avoiding movies that want to sound intelligent by showing scenes in a non-chronological order, throw in scenes that add more art or violence or boring dialogue than content (reason I have never cared to watch Pulp Fiction). 11:14 being a big exception.

Have you seen Memento? One of the best non-chronological films IMO. Enjoyed Mulholland Dr. too mind you...

Hm, yeah, I agree that the Harry Potter movies grew more "dark", but it was only the last ones, after the series gained a lot of older fans, it wasn't aimed at kids any more.

I agree about Pulp Fiction, everyone loves it, I really didn't like it. Generally I only like a couple of Tarantino movies.

The Matrix had a good backstory (ok, the theme that the machines rise and take over the world has been done before, but this one had a very dark side, not that the humans were still fighting as in the Terminator for example, but that they are all slaves for the machines etc.). It was not another SciFi with CGI, it actually had a story that you could get caught in it and feel for the characters (who were developed fairly good). Plus, Hugo Weaving was just amazing. Also the 360 degree camera shots and some of the special effects were completely new at the time, very cool on the big screen.

Mulholland Drive: perfect example of why movies told in a non-chronological way are often a miss for me, recommend by a friend who said it was a movie with an interesting lesbian theme, it all started out interesting even though scenes that didn't make sense were thrown in, when I realized that the movie's premise on the box was totally misleading and the storyline so basic that I was like ok why the hell did they make such a long movie about it. It really got me avoiding movies that want to sound intelligent by showing scenes in a non-chronological order, throw in scenes that add more art or violence or boring dialogue than content (reason I have never cared to watch Pulp Fiction). 11:14 being a big exception.

Have you seen Memento? One of the best non-chronological films IMO. Enjoyed Mulholland Dr. too mind you...

I watched it once and didn't really like it, but I was stoned at Uni at the time!

Watched The Sweeney on the weekend. I loved the original TV show so was interested to see what they did with the concept in a movie all these years later. I did like it but, considering they are supposed to be the masters at what they do, regardless of the dubious methods they choose to do their job, I thought there were some really obvious mistakes the team made that shouldn't have happened, which sort of took away my total enjoyment of the movie, & I am usually a total fan of anything Ray Winstone is in. Just my opinion

FINALLY saw Django yesterday - in short a very good movie but IMHO probably not Tarantino's best.

There wasn't a lot to criticise but it was a bit long for me - I don't think the twist at the end was unnecessary though. The violence on the whole as well crafted but a few of the scenes were a bit OTT (Particularly the mandingo fight felt a little bit awkward to watch).

On the other hand Waltz and Di Caprio were fantastic, but for me the highlight was Samuel L. Jackson - I was in fits of laughter!

8/10 - Very Good I personally enjoyed Inglorious Basterds and the Kill Bills more.

FINALLY saw Django yesterday - in short a very good movie but IMHO probably not Tarantino's best.

There wasn't a lot to criticise but it was a bit long for me - I don't think the twist at the end was unnecessary though. The violence on the whole as well crafted but a few of the scenes were a bit OTT (Particularly the mandingo fight felt a little bit awkward to watch).

On the other hand Waltz and Di Caprio were fantastic, but for me the highlight was Samuel L. Jackson - I was in fits of laughter!

8/10 - Very Good I personally enjoyed Inglorious Basterds and the Kill Bills more.

I read an article in my newspaper today that said that Ray Winstone, who is here in Oz at the moment to promote The Sweeney, said that they are looking at doing The Sweeney 2 & making it in Australia with maybe Russell Crowe in it. I am not sure how I feel about this as The Sweeney is was such an English show & I am not sure how they would translate any part of it to Australia. Yea, sure, they can follow criminals to Australia etc but I have never seen a show/movie that has done that sucessfully yet. For some reason English script writers tend to write scripts that go for the stereotypical Aussie thing, which is cringeworthy, rather than how things are in reality now.

Life of Pi - I thought it was a great film. A brilliant way to cover spirituality and the will of humanity. I thought I had understood the story until I went to work a few days later and an Indian colleague explained it all to me. Thought it was even better after that.

Django Unchained - Very entertaining. Never know where it's going to go or when it's going to finish. Brilliant action scenes and a strong plot. Not sure if i'd watch it again any time soon, though.

Life of Pi - I thought it was a great film. A brilliant way to cover spirituality and the will of humanity. I thought I had understood the story until I went to work a few days later and an Indian colleague explained it all to me. Thought it was even better after that.

It was a copy of the story of the Mignonette, the yaght that sunk. The 4 survivors in the raft ate the teenager year old bellboy, called Richard Parker.

The writer of the book just threw in some spiritual mumbo jumbo and the director a lot of CGI (there were more blue-green stuff than Avatar!) and suddenly you get a box office.

Life of Pi - I thought it was a great film. A brilliant way to cover spirituality and the will of humanity. I thought I had understood the story until I went to work a few days later and an Indian colleague explained it all to me. Thought it was even better after that.

It was a copy of the story of the Mignonette, the yaght that sunk. The 4 survivors in the raft ate the teenager year old bellboy, called Richard Parker.

The writer of the book just threw in some spiritual mumbo jumbo and the director a lot of CGI (there were more blue-green stuff than Avatar!) and suddenly you get a box office.